Thanks, Louis. My original question has been adequately answered, by several people including yourself. I think the "denier" label is sometimes applied to people who I don't think are denying the reality or seriousness of climate change, only going against the mainstream on some of the details or suggested solutions. I think that tactic is counter-productive. But no one here seems to support it, which is good.

My "sticking point" now is that I don't appreciate being accused of having some kind of dishonest agenda, or of being a "dumb sumbitch" too lazy or stupid to use Google. I said earlier I'd go back to lurking, because I don't enjoy this kind of exchange ("Jane, you ignorant slut..."), but I guess I've been sucked in now.

Anyway, my main interest is in exploring the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the public policy side. I think there are a lot of reasons why the general public is still skeptical, and some (not all) of those reasons relate to the way the scientific community overall is handling the issue. This is a teaching moment, and when a student isn't getting it, it's the teacher's responsibility to find a way to get through.

My profession is communications, so crafting messages so they'll resonate with a target audience is something I know a little about. Hence my orientation to this.

IOW in July 2011, on average (and I'm being generous because July isn't over so far), 71 temperature locations in the US per day had record breaking high temperatures. Almost 150 per day had record breaking highest minimum temperatures and 2 locations per day had their Highest Temp ever recorded.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

JoeG is a global warming denier to. His favorite player in that arena... Spencer.

Nevermind.

Kevin, As usual you are lying. I do not deny the earth is warming and even posted that on your blog.

I do say it is a good thing and I also say that soot, not CO2, is responsible for melting glaciers and ice-packs.

Look it up- soot and global warming- or just continue to be a little lying faggot. Your choice...

What makes you think that soot warming means that increasing CO2 does not also cause warming? It is particularly evident that warming occurs when the sun is not shining (that would be night time temperatures, when black carbon does not absorb light).

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

Changes in outgoing radiation are both a consequence and a cause of changes in the earth’s temperature. Spencer and Braswell recently showed that in a simple box model for the earth the regression of outgoing radiation against surface temperature gave a slope that differed from the model’s true feedback parameter. They went on to select input parameters for the box model based on observations, computed the difference for those conditions, and asserted that there is a significant bias for climate studies. This paper shows that Spencer and Braswell overestimated the difference. Differences between the regression slope and the true feedback parameter are significantly reduced when 1) a more realistic value for the ocean mixed layer depth is used, 2) a corrected standard deviation of outgoing radiation is used, and 3) the model temperature variability is computed over the same time interval as the observations. When all three changes are made, the difference between the slope and feedback parameter is less than one-tenth of that estimated by Spencer and Braswell. Absolute values of the difference for realistic cases are less than 0.05 W/m^2/K, which is not significant for climate studies that employ regressions of outgoing radiation against temperature. Previously published results show that the difference is negligible in the Hadley Centre Slab Climate Model, version 3 (HadSM3). (Murphy and Forster, 2010)

my emphasis

Wait, notice when this paper was published... 2010. Yeah, everyone was aware that Spencer's work was flawed a year BEFORE Spencer's paper was published.

In typical fashion the alarmists are taking shots at Roy Spencer and not caring about the data.

Spencer's paper is about a simple 1-D model. A boneheaded one that used unphysical parameters and overfitting.

What's actually funny is that several prominent climate researchers found parts of Spencer's 1-d model interesting, useful, and raised some interesting questions. They suggested revisions to the paper which is why it was published (after over a year of revisions).

Which explains why research showing Spencer is wrong came out BEFORE Spencer's own paper was published.

Of course, people are looking at the data. But if you read the stuff that Spencer has written, his 'model' takes four variables and adjusts them to fit the data collected by satellite.

Unfortunately, if you use his calculated numbers, the temperature a million years ago was something like 1 trillion degrees below zero.

Further, he uses unrealistic numbers. He calculated the mixing depth of the ocean at 700 meters. Of course, that completely ignores the simple fact that much of the ocean DOESN'T mix at that depth. Both Joe and Spencer need to look up 'thermocline' and explain why a layer where the water temperature rapidly changes by several degrees exists at between 50-100 meters... when the ocean should be perfectly mixed all the way to 700 meters.

There are many, many problems with Spencer's work and it has been cataloged quite effectively by the scientists who do such things.

Heck, several other people recreated his work and then tried to make it better. It just doesn't work. If you fit the curves now, then the historical curves do not match what actually happened in history. If you fit larger sections of the curve with your four variables, then you get obviously wrong results (like the temperature in 75 years will be -300 degree C.)

But Joe and Spencer are too busy looking for ideologies that support them instead of looking for data and results that are actually correct.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

JoeG is a global warming denier to. His favorite player in that arena... Spencer.

Nevermind.

Kevin, As usual you are lying. I do not deny the earth is warming and even posted that on your blog.

I do say it is a good thing and I also say that soot, not CO2, is responsible for melting glaciers and ice-packs.

Look it up- soot and global warming- or just continue to be a little lying faggot. Your choice...

What makes you think that soot warming means that increasing CO2 does not also cause warming? It is particularly evident that warming occurs when the sun is not shining (that would be night time temperatures, when black carbon does not absorb light).

Also the cooling stratosphere, which wouldn't be happening if warming was from more soot.

As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”:

1.“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.2.“It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.3.NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth in an email: “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”4.Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate: “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”

The whole blog post linked to above for further refutations of Spencer's 'work'*.

*I use the term 'work' instead of the proper description "the creation of a flight of fancy that manages to match current data while making non-current predictions that are physically impossible".

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Just in case you were thinking that ID is the only subject on which Big Science tolerates no dissent, the editor-in-chief of Remoting Sensing has just resigned. His crime? Allowing a seminal article by Roy Spencer and William Braswell to be published. Shades of Sternberg. The paper has gotten a good bit of media attention, for an obvious reason: they show that one of the feedbacks that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been treating as a positive feedback is really a negative feedback. In other words, rather than magnifying the effects of global warming due to extra atmospheric CO2, it counteracts it.

In resigning, the editor, Wolfgang Wagner, mentions absolutely no error in the paper. Essentially he says that "various internet discussion fora" have been on fire attacking the paper, he shouldn't have allowed it to be published, even though it went through (by his own admission) the proper peer-review channels, and even though he can't cite a single error in the paper. The forces of darkness may have overplayed their hand on this one. Spencer has challenged anyone who finds any error in the paper to submit a peer-reviewed article making the case.

Either they are unaware of Dessler's upcoming rebunking, or are lying by omission. Let me spoil the surprise ending - Spencer is a crappy scientist. I would argue, not a scientist at all anymore but a politician.

Quote

Nicholas, I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.

I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

If I and others are ultimately successful, it may well be that my job is no longer needed. Well then, that is progress. There are other things I can do.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

That bald admission by Spencer is a beautiful thing and I'm glad it got copied here. It's been making the rounds for some time and it needs to be repeated whenever Spencer's name comes up.

Of course, the denialsphere loves it. They're convinced that mainstream climate science is a worldwide conspiracy of left-wing scientists who are just making shit up for political reasons. So Spencer baldly stating that this is what he's doing but from the perspective of the right wing makes him a hero. And an honest hero, unlike those lying scum mainstream climate scientists who aren't even honest enough to admit that all of mainstream climate science is a left wing-driven fraud.

Seriously. That's how they think. And in the case of Rick Perry, campaign for President.

AGW denial is different to Evolution denial because we can track the changes to the climate.Given that the rural conservatives and large ag businesses have the most to lose through climate change will we reach a point where they tell their denial leaders to fuck off.

They can hardly asked for subsidies to manage the effects of climate change if the GOP denies it exists.

AGW denial is different to Evolution denial because we can track the changes to the climate.Given that the rural conservatives and large ag businesses have the most to lose through climate change will we reach a point where they tell their denial leaders to fuck off.

They can hardly asked for subsidies to manage the effects of climate change if the GOP denies it exists.

You're so cute when your naive :)

Rick Perry, as we speak, is trying to get FEMA money for Texas, even after cutting fire defense budgets AND telling the government that FEMA was a waste of time and money because the states can handle it without the interference of the Feds.

Denial is denial. Politics is politics. Money is money. Logic and sense be damned when politicians are talking and money is on the table.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

AGW denial is different to Evolution denial because we can track the changes to the climate.Given that the rural conservatives and large ag businesses have the most to lose through climate change will we reach a point where they tell their denial leaders to fuck off.

They can hardly asked for subsidies to manage the effects of climate change if the GOP denies it exists.

You're so cute when your naive :)

Rick Perry, as we speak, is trying to get FEMA money for Texas, even after cutting fire defense budgets AND telling the government that FEMA was a waste of time and money because the states can handle it without the interference of the Feds.

Denial is denial. Politics is politics. Money is money. Logic and sense be damned when politicians are talking and money is on the table.

No I agree that leaders will only change if they are in danger of losing an election if they don't change. This happened in Australia about a decade ago when the Prime Minister was a denialist and suddenly found out that 75% of Aussies believed in climate change.

I was talking about the great unwashed masses and some not so small agri concerns. Your farm could end up totally uneconomic due to climate change. As usually happens the government steps in to subsidise changes in land use. Now the GOP has painted itself into a corner and can't subsidise the effects of something they don't believe exists. So I wonder if the farm towns will start voting for candidates that believe in AGW.

In a good cause. Just like fake miracles conveniently timed for a crusade.

What fascinates ID types about the global warming controversy is that it is pseudoscience mushrooming over a short period before collapsing, instead of a long period before petering out.

Daayum, ID types are stupid! Times Atlas =/= claiming to do science, therefore it can't be pseudoscience. Somebody who was not an expert made a goof. Here is a Real Scientist (not an IDiot):

Quote

Ted Scambos, the NSIDC's expert on the Greenland ice sheet, says neither he nor his colleagues were consulted in person. "Graduate students would not have made a mistake like this," he told New Scientist.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

From the same bozos who brought us the "documentary" Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, comes...

Quote

An Albuquerque-based filmmaker called Mark Mathis has produced a film called Spoiled, which promises to expose the “outright lies” being spread about oil by “the media, politicians and environmental activists”. Mathis says it’s now time to “fill up on the truth”.

Quote

The only clue to the film’s deeper content and arguments is the trailer that is currently posted on the film’s website. The viewer is introduced to half a dozen or so (unlabelled) talking heads, including Senator James Inhofe, all of which help to feed into the film’s central premise of why we need “an open and honest discussion about energy”. (The film’s co-writer Kevin Miller also talks about the film on an Atlanta-based Christian TV station.)

All Science So Far!

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

From the same bozos who brought us the "documentary" Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, comes...

Quote

An Albuquerque-based filmmaker called Mark Mathis has produced a film called Spoiled, which promises to expose the “outright lies” being spread about oil by “the media, politicians and environmental activists”. Mathis says it’s now time to “fill up on the truth”.

Quote

The only clue to the film’s deeper content and arguments is the trailer that is currently posted on the film’s website. The viewer is introduced to half a dozen or so (unlabelled) talking heads, including Senator James Inhofe, all of which help to feed into the film’s central premise of why we need “an open and honest discussion about energy”. (The film’s co-writer Kevin Miller also talks about the film on an Atlanta-based Christian TV station.)

All Science So Far!

An open an honest discussion about energy:

"We can get all of our energy needs without pollutants."

"But, then the rich people won't be able to afford to buy more senators."

"QED."

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Thanks, Louis. My original question has been adequately answered, by several people including yourself. I think the "denier" label is sometimes applied to people who I don't think are denying the reality or seriousness of climate change, only going against the mainstream on some of the details or suggested solutions. I think that tactic is counter-productive. But no one here seems to support it, which is good.

My "sticking point" now is that I don't appreciate being accused of having some kind of dishonest agenda, or of being a "dumb sumbitch" too lazy or stupid to use Google. I said earlier I'd go back to lurking, because I don't enjoy this kind of exchange ("Jane, you ignorant slut..."), but I guess I've been sucked in now.

Anyway, my main interest is in exploring the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the public policy side. I think there are a lot of reasons why the general public is still skeptical, and some (not all) of those reasons relate to the way the scientific community overall is handling the issue. This is a teaching moment, and when a student isn't getting it, it's the teacher's responsibility to find a way to get through.

My profession is communications, so crafting messages so they'll resonate with a target audience is something I know a little about. Hence my orientation to this.

Trouble...I dont think its so much the warnings over climate change and/or deforestation that makes them skeptical but rather the femicrat’s use of Co2 levels toward population control. Why do the likes of Bill Gates, Al Gore, the United Nations etc.. always focus blame on African and Latin American populations, deforestations, dust ect…when African and Latin American ecology is way better than United Nation's ecology? Why is that the United Nations allows epidemics like typhus and malaria in Africa and Latin America but wipes them out only in lands that they occupy? Is it because they want this land for themselves? Yeah these radical femicrats also deny good stewardship because their religion tells them that their mother-nature selection will “always” evolve better without mankind. But that idea is now literally going up in smoke. Indigenous agroforesters knew better and were fantastic stewards from British Columbia to Amazonia. Unfortunately, most of this indigenous knowledge was wiped out and/or suppressed by so called progressives and finally forgotten after years of progressive handouts.